# FILED
Janu ary 5, 1996 Cec il Crow son , Jr . A pp ellat e C ou rtC lerk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS

AT NA SH VILLE APR IL 19 95 SE SSIO N STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) NO . 01C 01- 9409- CC -0 0328 ) Ap pe l l ee ) W AR R EN C OU N TY ) V. ) HO N. C HA RLE S D . H ASTON ) DARRY L GENE FARMER, ) (First Degree Murder) ) Appel lan t )

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: Dal e Potter Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Di str ict Pu bli c D efender Atto rn ey Gene ra l and R epor

ter P.O. Box 510 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kw ay 309 W . M or

ford St re et Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Mc Mi nnv il le, TN 37110 (Tr ial Onl y ) Amy L. Tark ing ton Ass t. Atto rn ey

Gene ra l and R epor

ter John E. H er bis on 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kw ay 2016 E ig hth Av enue S outh Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Nas hv il le, TN 37204 (Appe al Only) W illiam M. Locke Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l Larry Ross Ass t. Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l P.O. Box 410 Professi onal Bui ldi ng Mc Mi nnv il le, TN 37110

OPIN ION F ILED

_________ ___ JU DG ME NT O F CO NV IC TION VAC ATED AN D RE MA ND ED F ORF UR THER PR OC EED IN GS W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge OPIN ION2 The appel lan t, Dar ry l Gene Far mer, appeal s a s o f ri g ht pu rs uant to R ule 3 ( b) of the Tennes see Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re from hi s c onv icti on of murder i n the firs t deg re e foll ow ing a j ur y tr ial i n the C ircui t C our t for W ar re n C ounty
. The appel lan t w as sent enced to li fe in p ri son. I n thi s a ppeal he p re sent s fiv e ( 5) i ss ues for our re vie w. (1 ) W hether

the ev ide nce w as suffici ent for a rati onal tr ier

of fact to find t he appe ll ant g uil ty of firs t deg re e murder bey ond a re asona ble doubt ; (2) W het her the indictm entagainst the app ellantw as invalid beca use o f

irregularities in the selection of the venire and/or the presenc e of an una uthor iz ed i ndi v idu al dur ing grand jury

procee dings; (3 ) W hether

ce rt ain st atements made by the prosec uti ng attor ney s d ur ing cl osi ng arg ument c onst it uted prosec utor ial mis condu ct; (4) W het her the trial court erroneo usly adm itted into evidence state me nts m ade bythe ap pellan t on th e night of his ar re st; (5) W het her the trial court erroneo usly adm itted into evidence state me nts made by the deced ent. After a tho ro ug h rev iew of the record i n thi s c ase, the appl ic abl e l aw , and arg uments of couns el, w e c oncl ude t hat w it h reg ard to is sues one (1 ) throug h three ( 3) no rev ersi ble er ro r appears i n thi s c ase. H ow ev er , becau se the record i s i nadeq uate w ith regard to w het her the app ellant ’ s r ight to coun sel w as v iolate d du ring police q uest ion ing , w e remand th e c ase for furt her factual findi ng s o n i ss ue number four (4 ). W e con clude thaterror ex ists w ith regard to issue nu mb er f iv e (5). Si nce the a ppel lan t has ch all eng ed th e s uff ic ien cy of the c onv icti ng ev ide nce, a summar y of the fact s e sta bli shed by the ev ide nce is nec ess ar y . On F ebr uar

y 20, 1992, the b ody

of Chr is topher

Boy d w as dis cov ered on an isolate d, de ad-e nd d irt road in rural W arren Cou nty. It was ap pare nt to the m em bers of the W ar re n C ounty

Sher iff's D epar

tment w ho i nit ial ly

respon ded foll ow ing the discovery

of the bo dy tha t Christoph er Boyd had m et a very v iolentdea th. T he victim3

had bee n s hot a t l eastonc e i n the head, and there w as als o a l arg e hol e i n the bac k o f the v icti m's j ack et. Ini ti all y , Sh er iff's de puti es w ere notsu re i f the hol e i n the bac k o f the j ack et ha d been caus ed by a g unsho t wound or

not. After

v iew ing the sec ured cr ime sc ene, the d is tr ict attor ney noti fied th e T.B.I . C ri me Lab, and personne l from that off ic e ar ri v ed l ater

thatev eni ng . Spec ial Ag ent S tev e Sc ott, a forensi c s ci enti st w it h the Tenness ee Bureau of Inv est ig ati on C ri me Laborator y , and three ot her

members o f the forens icteam ar ri v ed at t he murder

sc ene ataround 10 :40 p .m. on the ev eni ng of Febr uar y 20, 1992. There w ere many

sh oe track s a nd ti re track s l eadi ng up t o the area w here the body w as dis cov ered. After the b ody and other

ev ide nce sur ro undi ng the sc ene had been photog ra phed, the v icti m w as re mov ed to a ho spi tal i n M cM inn v il le. Thereafter, Sc ott and hi s t eam recov ered s ome smal l bone fra g ments bel iev ed to hav e c ome from t he v icti m's head. O ne s uch bone fra g ment was found nin e feet th re e i nches from t he v icti m's body
. Anothe r w as found thi rt een feet fro m the body , and st il l another w as found ele v en feet t en i nches from t he body
. After bei ng q ual ified as an e x per t i n firear ms, Scott t est ified thathe found a nd re cov ered a sl ug and w addi ng from und er neath the a re a of the head of the v icti m. I t was A gen t S co tt 's op in io n th a t t h e wo u n d to th e ba ckw a s ca u se d by a twelve -ga u ge shot g un fired from a di sta nce of somew here betw een fiv e and sev en feet from the v ictim. He testif ied th at th e prese nce o f lead residu e on the jacke t of the victim could indicat e tha t the w eap on was fired closer thatf iv e feet . He could no t tell the sp ecif ic gau ge o f th e gun w h ich w a s u se d to sh o o t t h e victi m in th e he a d , a s t h e w a d d in gs re mov ed from t he wound were too muti lat ed. It w as his opi nio n, ho w ev er , t hat b ased o n th e da m a ge t o th e sku ll o f th e victi m an d th e lo ca ti o n of th e slu g an d w a d d in gs under neath the s kul l, thatthe v icti m w as ly ing w it h hi s h ead ag ain st the g ro und w hen he w as shoti n the head. I t was als o hi s o pin ion thatthe head wound ha d been inf licted by a g un which had b een f ired shortly before it w as use d to sho ot th e v ictim in4

th e he ad b ec au s e th e w ou nd t o th e fac e w as c on s i s te ntw i th a n i nj ur y i nfl i c te d from a g un i n w hic h g as press ure had bui ltup s ubseq uent to a re centdi sc harg e. Dr . G re tel H ar lan per

formed an autops y

on F ebr uar

y 21, 1992. D r. H ar lan t e s t if ie d t h a tt h e sh o t gu n wo u n d t o t h e vic t im ' s b a c kwa s in t h e n e a r- wo u n d ca t e go ry, but t hat s he c oul d onl y

es ti mate t hat t he s hot was fire d from t hree to ei g hteen feet from the v icti m. S he furt her co ncl uded t hat t he wound t o the sk ull had been c aused by a sho tgun slug. She also cat egoriz ed th e he ad wound as a nea r-woun d. Dr. Har lan w as of the opi nio n tha t t he s hotg un wound t o the bac k woul d hav e been fatal w ithin a m atte r of

minu tes be cause of

exten siv e injury to th e v ictim's rig ht lun g. Dr. Har lan co ncl uded t hat M r. Boy d w as firs t s hot i n the bac k a nd th en i n the head. Dou g M arti n, an ac q uai ntanc e of both the a ppel lan t and the v icti m, tes ti fied th at approx imat ely

one w eek pr ior

to the v icti m's deat h, t he appe ll ant t old M r. M arti n tha t the v ictim w as informin g the police of the ap pellan t's drug-selling activ ities and thatMr
. Boy d neede d to be k il led
. The appel lan t as ked Mr . M arti n to ass is t hi m in ki ll ing the v icti m. M r. M arti n refused. Ma rt in thereafter tol d the v icti m w hat t he appe ll ant h ad sai d abouthi m. The v icti m, ac cordin g to Mr . M arti n, di d notbel iev e tha t t he appe ll ant w oul d har m hi m, and, i n fact, C hr is topher Boy d tol d M arti n tha t he and t he appe ll ant had pl ans to s teal tw enty-fiv e pound s o f marijua na. Stev e Pl easan t, li kew is e an acq uai ntanc e of both the v icti m and t he appe ll ant, testif ied th at he saw

the victim on the af

terno on o f

Februa ry

19, 19 92, w hen the victim gav e Mr. Pleasan t a ride hom e f rom work. On th at occa sion, Plea santsaw the victim and t he appe ll ant e ng ag e i n a c onv ersat ion on t he s treet, and t hereafter the a ppel lan t follo w ed th e v icti m's tr uck to Mr . Pl easan t' s h ouse w here M r. Pl easan t was dropped off
. The v icti m tol d M r. Pl easan t t hat h e w as g oin g to buy the appel lan t' s c ar , and that he wanted to driv e it before he bou ght it. Lastly , Mr. Pleasan t testif ied th at th e v ictim tol d hi m thathe a nd th e appel lan t w ere g oin g to a bar n to g et s ome mar ij uana.5 Jessie Michae l Eldridge, Jr., a frien d of the ap pellan t, test if ied th at on Februa ry 1 9 , 1 9 9 2 , t h e ap p e lla n t c a lle d hi m an d sa id he ne e d e d to sp e a k with hi m . E ld rid ge testif ied th at th e ap pellan t seem ed jum py and nervous w hen he arriv ed. Farmer told El dr idg e tha t he had k il led the v icti m beca use of his bel ief tha t t he v icti m w as informin g on h im. He told Eld ridge that he shot th e v ictim on ce in the back an d on ce in the face. The ap pel lan t furt her sa id that he and the v icti m w ere on the way to ste al marijua na w hen t hey

pul led up t o the si de of the ro ad and sta rt ed w alk ing to w here the marijua na w as loc ated. As they w ere w alk ing up t he di rtroad t he v icti m sai d, "Y ou ain 'tg oin g to shootme, a re y ou?" The appel lan t t old M r. El dr idg e tha t he ass ured th e v icti m thathe was not g oin g to shoothi m beca use they w ere "g ood bud die s." How ever, w hen the victim turned aw ay he sh ot him in the ba ck and then shot him in the face wi th a twelv e-gauge shotgun . Th e ap pellan t said tha t w hen he sho t the v ictim in the h ead i t bl ew

hi s face aw ay , and thatafter he s hot t he v icti m he bur ned t he v icti m's cl othes
. The appel lan t as ked him to prov ide an a li bi for hi m w hic h, atfirst, El dr idg e di d prov ide
. Ri cky Jo hnson tes ti fied th at du ri ng the ear ly par t of 1992, the appel lan t as ked to bo rrow

Jo hnson 's tw enty-g aug e s hotg un, s ay ing thathe was g oin g hunt ing
. Johns on recal led thatthe appel lan t retur ned t he g un approx imat ely two hours a fter h e had bor ro w ed i t. M r. Jo hnson tes ti fied th at he di d nothav e furt her co ntact w it h the appel lan t ag ain unti l a y ear or so l ater
. At t hat t ime, the appel lan t c all ed M r. Jo hnson and said, "Ricky, that gun I borrowed f rom you--I shot a m an wi th it." Approximate ly three month s l ater , t he defendant cal led ag ain and sai d, "I di dn'tki ll nobody w it h tha t." Fol low ing the murde r of Chr is topher Boy d an extens iv e i nv est ig ati on beg an, and Ag ent D anny

W ix , a sev enteen- y ear v eteran of the Tenness ee Bureau of Investigation, e nte red the case ab outtw elve day s followi ng the discovery of Boyd's body
. Parall eli ng the murde r inv est ig ati on, a uthor it ies i nit iat ed an undercov er dr ug operati on i n W ar re n C ounty
. Dur ing the course of the murder i nv est ig ati on and the6

dr ug operati on, t he appe ll ant b ecame a pr ime sus pecti n the murder of the v icti m. At one poi nt, Mi ke El dr idg e w as als o a s uspect. Bot h w ere i nter v iewed i n the months follo w ing the dis cov er

y of the b ody , and both deni ed any i nv olv ement i n the ki ll ing
. On J anuar

y 22, 1993, both the a ppel lan t and M ik e El dr idg e w ere ar re ste d separatel y

i n rela ti on to the undercov er dr ug operati on. Theyw ere broug ht t o the W ar re n C ounty

D is tr ict Attor ney

Gene ra l' s o ff ic e, an d Ag ent W ix first int er

v iewed El dr idg e. Thereafter , W ix i nter v iewed th e appel lan t after adv is ing hi m of his M iranda ri g hts
. Ini ti all y , t he appe ll ant d eni ed any i nv olv ement i n the murder of Chr is topher Boy d. Later

i n the ev eni ng , howev er , Ag ent W ix broug ht M ik e El dr idg e i nto t he int er v iew room w here the appel lan t was loc ated, and El dr idg e adv is ed th e appel lan t that he had g iv en th e aut hor it ies a s tatementi mpli cat ing the appel lan t i n the ki ll ing of the v icti m. Soon t hereafter, the appel lan t i ndi cat ed th at he woul d be w il li ng to g iv e a state me nt if

he cou ld be pro mise d tha t he would notreceiv e the dea th pe nalty. W ix tes ti fied th at bo th he and the d is tr ict attor ney g eneral adv is ed th e appel lan t t hat n o suc h as surance coul d be made, an d, after first tel ephoni ng hi s p arents , t he appe ll ant gav e a stat em entw hich w as redu ced to w riting by one of the assista nt district attor ney s g eneral. In t he s tatement , w hic h w as re ad i nto e v ide nce before t he j ur y , t he appe ll ant ind ic ated that he and Boy d g ot t og ether on F ebr uar

y 19,1 992, after lea v ing wor k a t Mc Mi nnv il le Ma nufactur ing
. The appel lan t s tated thatC hr is topher Boy d approache d him abo ut a pla n to ste al som e ma rijuana f rom a person ident if ied as Harry Bess, w hom the ap pellan t claime d to no t know. W hile w aiting for it to beco me dusky dark, the a ppel lan t s aid thathe a nd Boyd drov e around, cons uming q uanti ti es of beer and Val ium. The v icti m adv is ed th e appel lan t t hat t hey both needed to be ar med w hen they w ent t o s teal the marijua na, a nd i t was at t hat p oin t t hat t he appe ll ant went t o the hom e of Ricky John son a nd b orrow ed a shotgun and some shells. Th e ap pellan t said7

that he w as aw are tha t t he v icti m w as already ar med w it h a tw enty-fiv e c ali ber automati c p is tol , w hic h the v icti m nor mall y ca rr ied w it h hi m. The appel lan t s tated thatafter they par ked thei r car

on M cGe e C ov e R oad and beg an w alk ing up t he di rtl ane w it h Boyd i n the l ead, Boy d tur ned and sa id, "Y ou g ot mypot, man." The appel lan t s tated thatw hen Bo y d made t he ac cus ati on Boyd had his g un i n hi s h and and made a threat t o the appel lan t. At that poi nt, the a ppel lan t state d he feare d tha t Boyd w as going to shoothim, so he sho t Boyd. He said he did not remember how

many ti mes he sh ot. After

sh ooti ng Boy d, t he appe ll ant s aid he w ent b ack

to his ca r and l eft, retur nin g the bor ro w ed s hotg un to R ic ky Jo hnson
. After leaving John son's ho me , the app ellantstate d tha t he dro v e to th e ho me of Mike El dr idg e and adv is ed El dr idg e w hat h ad oc cur re d. T he a ppe llant did not intro duce any ev iden ce at th e trial.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE The appel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide nce int ro duced at tr ial w as ins uff ic ien t t o suppo rthi s c onv icti on for firs t- deg re e murder
. Spec ific all y , he arg ues that there w as not s uff ic ien t ev ide nce to es tabl is h the es sent ial el ements of premedit ati on and del ibe ra ti on. W e di sag re e. W here the su ff ic ien cy

of the e v ide nce is ch all eng ed, t he rele v ant q uest ion for thi s c our t i s w hether , after

rev iew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the prosec uti on, a ny

rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial el ements of the cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Jac ks on v . Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 99 S. C t. 2781, 61 L . Ed. 2 d 56 0 (197 9); Sta te v. W illiams, 65 7 S.W .2d 405 , 410 (Ten n. 19 83); T.R. A.P. 13 ( e)
. A g uil ty v erdict, approv ed by

the tr ial j udg e, ac credi ts the t est imony of the w it ness es for th e St ate a nd resol v es any co nflicts in fav or

of the S tate' s t heor

y . Stat e v . H atc hett, 560 S.W .2d 6 27, 6 30 ( Tenn. 1978 ). O n appea l, the Stat e i s e nti tl ed to the8

strong estl eg it imat e v iew of the e v ide nce and t o al l re asona ble i nferenc es w hic h mi g ht be d raw n the ref rom. State v . Cabb age, 57 1 S.W .2d 832 , 836 (Ten n. 19 78). A v erdict ag ain st the d efendant remov es the p re sumpti on of i nnoce nce and repl aces i t w it h a presumpt ion of g uil t on appeal
. Stat e v . G ra ce, 493 S.W .2d 4 74 ( Tenn. 1973 ). The defendant has the burden of ov ercomi ng the presumpt ion of g uil t. Sta te v . Brow n, 55 1 S.W .2d 3 29 ( Tenn. 1977 ). Onc e a h omic ide has been est abl is hed, iti s p re sumed to be se cond- deg re e murde r, and the S tate bears t he burden of proof on the is sues of premedit ati on and del ibe ra ti on s uff ic ien t t o el ev ate t he offense to firs t- deg re e murder
. Stat e v . Brow n, 836 S. W .2d 5 30 ( Tenn. 1992 ). I n Brow n, ou r Supreme C our t di sc uss ed th e el ements of f irst- deg re e murder

at len g th. The C our

t s aid thatthe ele ment of del ibe ra ti on cont emplat es a l apse of time betw een t he dec is ion to ki ll and the a ctu al ki ll ing
. The Cou rtfurth er

st ated that "the d eli berati on and premedit ati on mus t be aki n to the delibe ration and prem edita tion m anifeste d w here the m urde r is by poiso n or ly ing i n w ait -- the c ool pur pose must be formed and t he del ibe ra te i ntent ion co ncei v ed i n the mind, i n the abs ence of pass ion , t o tak e the l ife of the person sl ain ." Id. at 53 9 (q uoti ng R ader

v . St ate, 73 Tenn. 610, 619- 20 ( 1880) ). Thus , i n order to conv ict a defendant for firs t- deg re e murder , a jur y mustfind t hat t he defendant ki ll ed w it h cool ness ( del ibe ra ti on) and after re flect iv e tho ug ht ( premedit ati on)
. Stat e v . W est , 844 S.W .2d 1 44, 1 47 ( Tenn. 1992 ); s ee al so Stat e v . Brooks , 880 S.W .2d 3 90, 3 92- 93 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 1993)
. T h e re is n o sp e c if ict im e re qu ir e d t o fo rm t h e re qu is it e d e li b e ra t io n . St a t e v. Gentr y , 881 S.W .2d 1 , 3- 4 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1993)
. Del ibe ra ti on i s p re sentw hen t he ci rc umstan ces su g g estthatthe defendant c ontempl ated the mann er and the conse quence s of

his act. Id. at4. W hile de liberatio n an d prem edita tion a re similar, they are defined as se parate a nd di sti nctel ements of firs t- deg re e murder
. See T.C .A. § 39- 13- 201 ( b) ( del ibe ra te act i s "o ne per formed w it h c ool pur pose" and premedit ated9

a c tis " o n e d o n e a f

t e r t h e e xe rc is e o f

re f le c t io n a n d ju d gm e n t
. " ); se e a ls o S t a t e v. Brooks , 880 S.W .2d a t 392 -9 3. Del ibe ra ti on and premedit ati on may be i nferred from the c ircums tanc es w here tho se ci rc umstan ces aff ir mati v ely es tabl is h tha t t he d e fe n d a n tp re m e d it a t e d h is a s s a u lta n d t h e n d e li b e ra t e ly p e rfo rm e d t h e a c t
. St a t e v. Ri chard N els on, N o. 02 C01 -9 211- CR - 00251 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , atJa ck son, Oct. 13, 1993)
. This C our

t has hel d tha t Brow n req uires "proof that the o ffense w as commi tted upo n ref lection , 'w ithou t passio n or provocation ,' and othe rw ise f ree f rom th e inf luen ce of ex ci tement" before a se cond- deg re e, i ntent ion al murde r can be el ev ated to murder in the first deg re e. Stat e v . D av id L. H ass ell , N o. 02 C01 -9 202- CR -0 0038, Sl ip Op. at 3 (Te nn. Cri m. App. , at Jackso n, Dec. 30 , 199 2). Looki ng at the fact s i n the presentca se in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the S tate, as w e are req uired to do o n appea l, w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce is more tha n suffici ent t o s uppor

t t he j ur y 's findi ng of premedit ati on and del ibe ra ti on. There w as tes ti mony

thatapprox imat ely

one w eek pr ior

to the s hooti ng , t he appe ll ant a dv is ed Dou g M arti n tha t t he v icti m needed to be ki ll ed bec ause of the appe ll ant' s b eli ef that the v icti m w as a pol ic e i nformant. F ur ther there i s e v ide nce that the a ppel lan t attempt ed to enl is t M arti n to ass is t hi m in the ki ll ing
. There w as als o ev ide nce from w hic h the j ur

y co uld reason abl y

co ncl ude t hat t he appe ll ant b or ro w ed a shot g un from Ri cky Jo hnson for t he pur pose of ex ecut ing Boy d. Fi nal ly the jur y heard tes ti mony from M ik e El dr idg e and Ri cky Jo hnson thatthe appel lan t admi tted to ea ch of them separatel y

thathe h ad i n fact shotand ki ll ed th e v icti m by first shoot ing Boy d i n the back and then shoot ing hi m in the face as the v icti m la y dy ing
. There is no mer itto thi s i ss ue.

VA LIDITY OF THE INDICTM ENT The appel lan t present s tw o threshol d i ss ues w hic h c oncer n the v ali dity of the ind ictment in thi s c ase. Ba sed upon a careful rev iew of the record w e c oncl ude t hat10

the i ndi ctmentbroug ht ag ain st the a ppel lan t was v ali d and the a rg uments adv anced by the appel lan t on thes e i ss ues are w it hout meri t. The first peti t j ur

y empanel ed to hear

the cas e ag ain st him w as q uashe d by the tr ial j udg e bec ause of a procedu ra l ir re g ula ri ty i n the se lecti on of the one t housa nd member jur

y v eni re . The g ra nd j ur

y w hic h i ndi cte d the appel lan t was draw n from t he same o ne th ousan d member v eni re as the q uashe d pet itj ur y . In order

to sel ecta g ra nd j ur y i n W ar re n c ounty , t he j ur y co mmiss ion ers, not a cl er k, are to meet and g ather names of eli g ibl e c it iz ens from the thous and member j ur y v eni re to ser

v e as jurors for

a pe ri od of two y ears. Tenn. C ode An n. § 22-2-30 2 (199 4 Repl.). In th is cas e, t he c ler k o f the J ur y C ommis si on of W ar re n C ounty par ti ci pated alo ng w it h the jury comm issioners in the selection of the on e tho usan d me mb er jury v enire, as w ell as in the s ele cti on of two hundred fifty members o f the panel for e ach ter m of cour t. It is upon thes e facts the appel lan t c lai ms t hat t he i ndi ctmentag ain st him is i nv ali d. In Fly nn v. State , 203 Te nn. 337 , 313 S.W .2d 248 (1958 ), the Su prem e Court of Tennessee hel d tha t a depar ture from a presc ri bed meth od of i mpanel ing a g ra nd jur y , i n the abs ence of f ra ud or preju dic e, do es not render thatg ra nd j ur

y i ll eg al nor

i ts act s i nv ali d. See al so Stat e v . Bo y d, 86 7 S. W .2d 3 30, 3 37 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1992)
. The appel lan t doe s n ot c ontend that there w as any fraud commi tted dur ing the selectio n of

the jury v enire f rom which the grand jurors w ho ind icted h im w ere sel ect ed. Fur

ther , t he appe ll ant h as not s how n tha t he w as preju dic ed by the procedu re . That the t ri al jud g e q uashe d the peti t j ur y bec ause of the i mprop er sel ect ion procedu re i n no w ay v it iat es the a uthor ity

of the g ra nd j ur

y w hic h i ndi cte d the appel lan t. At most, t he depa rt ure from t he procedu ra l re q uirements of j ur y se lecti on re ndered th e g ra nd j ur

y a de facto g ra nd j ur

y . In F ly nn, t he Sup re me C our t hel d tha t a de facto g ra nd j ur

y i s i mbued w it h the sa me autho ri ty to ind ict as a proper ly

se lected g ra nd j ur y . Stat e v . F ly nn, 3 13 S. W . 2d at 25 2. Therefore, the d efendant's i ndi ctment w as v ali d.11 The appel lan t al so cont ends that the p re senc e of an una uthor iz ed person in the grand jury

room during the takin g of testim ony and th e de liberatio ns of the grand jury w as so preju dic ial to the j udi ci al proces s t hat t his C our t s houl d s et as ide the ind ictment is sued ag ain st him in thi s c ause. The g ra nd j ur

y foreman in W ar re n C ounty at the t ime the i ndi ctmentw as returne d against th e ap pellan t had bee n servi ng as the grand jury forem an for almo st ten y ears. A n ew

g ra nd j ur

y foreman had bee n c hosen by the tr ial j udg e to tak e ov er on Apr il 1, 1993. The tr ial j udg e aut hor iz ed Ge rr y Gi pson, the new

j ur y foreman, to be pres en t du r i ng a p or

ti on o f t he g ran d j ur

y p roc ee di ng s s o th ath e c ou l d be c om e fam iliar w ith the process an d learn h ow the g rand jury ope rates. T enn essee Rule of

Cri min al Proced ure 6 (h) (1) prov ides th at th e district attor ney g eneral shal l not b e present , “ nor sh all any

othe r off ic er

or person be present w hen t he q uest ion i s t aken upon t he findi ng of an i ndi ctment .” ( emphasi s a dded)
. Add itiona lly , Te nne ssee Cod e Ann ota ted section 8-7-501 provi des th at atg rand jury proceed ing s t he di str ict attor ney g eneral or

hi s d esi g nated ass is tant shal l not b e presentw hen t he q uest ion i s t aken upon t he findi ng of an i ndi ctment
. There is no all eg ati on th at M r. Gi pson w as presentdur ing the tak ing of the g ra nd j ur y 's v ote, and the t est imony

cl ear ly es tabl is hed t hat, i n fact, M r. Gi pson w as not p re sentdur ing the g ra nd j ur y v ote. Impor

tantl y , t he te sti mony

at the h ear ing w as that Mr . G ips on di d not p a rt ic ip a t e in a n y d e li b e ra t io n o f t h e gra n d ju ry. W hil e w e do not c ondone the p re senc e of a g ra nd j ur y foreman "train ee" or

any dep arture f rom th e rules an d stat ute s g overning g rand juries, w e ho ld tha t Mr. Gipson 's presen ce in the g rand jury room during g rand jury procee dings w as no t so preju dic ial to the j udi ci al proces s a s t o mer ita di smi ss al of the i ndi ctmenti n thi s c ase. In S ad l er v . St at e, 1 24 Te nn . 50 , 53 , 13 6 S. W
. 43 0 ( 19 11 ) , th e Ten ne s s ee S up rem e Cou rthel d tha t al thoug h i t was er ro r for a cour t officer to re main in the g ra nd j ur y room dur ing por

ti ons of thei r proceed ing s, suc h c asual presenc e of a c our t officer di d not12

hav e the effectof v it iat ing the ind ictment w here the re w as no s how ing thatthe off ic er attempt ed to i nter

fere w it h or

i nfluenc e the g ra nd j ur y i n i ts act ion
. T he p urpo se of

g rand jury

secrecy is to insure tha t the jurors maydi sc harg e the ir

duti es w it hout apprehens ion of any hur t from an ac cus ed or

so me other

person; to sec ure the utmos t free dom of dis cl osure of al leg ed cr imes by

prosec utors; to c oncea l the factthatan ind ictment has been found ag ain st an ac cus ed w ho is not y et i n c ust ody ; t o prev ent p er jur y and subor nati on of perjuryto the exten t tha t, if testim ony g iv en b efore the g ra nd j ur

y w ere k now n, t he ac cus ed or a c onfederat e mig ht attempt to di sprov e i t by procur ing fals e tes ti mony ; and to prote ct an accu sed citizen f rom p ublic disgrace in a c ase w here the re i s n ot en oug h ev ide nce to s uppor t a c ri minal ch arg e. R ipp y v . St ate, 550 S. W .2d 6 36, 6 42 ( Tenn. 1977 ). W e hol d tha t t he attendanc e of M r. Gi pson in the g ra nd j ur y room dur ing i ts del ibe ra ti ons did not preju dic e the j udi ci al syste m beca use there w as no i ndi cat ion that he par ti ci pated in any

w ay , s hape or

form i n the proceed ing s, inc lud ing the del ibe ra ti ons, and he w as nev er al lowed to remain in the j ur y room w hil e the v ote was bei ng tak en. Acc ordin g ly , w e hol d tha t t he i ndi ctmenti n thi s c ase w as v ali d.
PROSE CUTORIA L MISCONDUC T T he a ppe llant ne xt cont end s thatcertain rema rks mad e by the prosecu tors dur ing thei r cl osi ng arg uments w ere s o i nflammator y and preju dic ial thatthey affect ed the v erdict t o the preju dic e of the defendant. Among the factors c onsi dered by thi s c our

t w hen rev iew ing an a ll eg ati on of prosec utor ial mis condu ct are: t he i ntentof the p ro sec utor , t he c urati v e meas ures under tak en by the cour t, the i mprop er

co nductv iewed i n c ontext and i n l ig ht of the facts and c ircums tanc es of the c ase, the cumul ati v e effectof the remark s w it h any e rro rs in t h e re c o rd , a n d t h e re la t ive st re n gt h o r we a k n e s s o f t h e ca s e . Ju d ge v. Stat e, 53 9 S. W .2d 3 40, 3 44 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1976)
. In order to be ent it led to re li ef,13

the app ellantis required to sh ow tha t the argumen t of the pro secut or w as so infla mmator

y or the condu ct so improper thati t affected t he v erdict t o hi s d etr iment
. Har ri ng ton v . St ate, 385 S. W .2d 7 58, 7 59 ( Tenn. 1965 ). Of the four

st atements obj ect ed to on a ppeal by the appel lan t, onl y

one w as obj ect ed to dur ing the tr ial
. It is w ell se ttl ed th at w it hout a c ontemporaneous obj ect ion to a prosec utor's st atements , t he er ro r is w aiv ed. Stat e v . Su tton, 562 S.W .2d 8 20, 825 (Ten n. 19 78); St ate v . Comp ton , 642 S.W .2d 745 , 747 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 82). T he a ppe llant ackn owl edges th is, but urges this Court to f ind th at th e stat em ent s w ere pla in er ro r. Tenness ee R ule of Cr imi nal Procedu re 52 ( b) prov ide s t hat "[ a]n e rror w hic h has affect ed th e s ubst anti al ri g hts of an ac cus ed may be n oti ced at an y

ti me, even tho ugh notraised in the mot ion for a new tr ial or assig ned as error on app eal, in the d is creti on of the appel lat e c our t w here nec ess ar

y to do s ubst anti al jus ti ce. " Beca use we have determ ined thatnon e of the sta tem ent s indiv idua lly or collectiv ely cons ti tute prosec utor ial mis condu ct, w e c oncl ude t hat t he pl ain er ro r doct ri ne has no appl ic ati on i n thi s c ase. The first sta tement to w hic h the appel lan t obj ect s was the s tatementof the district atto rney that the app ellantshot th e v ictim at a range some w here between six (6 ) and tw elv e ( 12) i nches from t he v icti m's bac k. The proof show ed th at t he wound t o the back w as inf licted by a shotgun atclose range. How ever, there w as no ev iden ce that the weapon was dis charg ed from a rang e of si x ( 6) to tw elv e ( 12) i nches from t he v icti m's bac k. W hil e w e ag re e tha t t he prosec utor mis sta ted t he ev ide nce as to t he dis tanc e of the w eapon from the back of the v icti m, w e c annot ag re e tha t s uch a mis sta tement li kel y

affect ed th e v erdict t o the appel lan t' s d etr iment
. W hether the w eapon was fire d from s ix ( 6) i nches or

se v en ( 7) feet does not affectthe ess enti al deter minat ion req uired to be made by the jur y to suppo rtthei r findi ng thatthe appel lan t was g uil ty

of murde r in the first deg re e.14 The appel lan t next c ontends thatse v eral re mark s made by the prosec utor conc er nin g the tes ti mony of Dou g M arti n c onst it uted prosec utor ial mis condu ct. The prosec utor

st ated sev eral ti mes du ri ng hi s c los ing st atements thati n a c onv ersat ion w ith Doug Martin, the app ellantcalled the v ictim a “narc." The app ellantcorrectly poi nts out that the word us ed by M r. M arti n w as “s nit chi ng .” W e do not b eli ev e tha t the term “na rc” as op pose d to “snitch ” had the po ten tial to un fairly inf lam e the jury suc h tha t t he appe ll ant was preju dic ed by the re mark

i n thi s c ase. Ag ain , w hil e pur por

ti ng to q uote tes ti mony of Dou g M arti n, t he di str ict attor ney general stat ed th at Mr. Martin said, "Your boy need s kill ing." Th e ap pellan t correctly state s thatthere was never testim ony that th e ap pellan t referred to the victim as a "boy ." The appel lan t reg ards thi s a s a n att empt on the p art of the prosec uti on to infla me the jur

y by att ri buti ng a raci al sl ur to the a ppel lan t. The s tate cont ends that the use of

the te rm "b oy" w as no t inten ded as a racial slur, but w as rathe r a slang term used to def ine a f riend or bu ddy. It is exceedingly dif f icult for this Court to asse ss w hat t he prosec utor

meant by

the use of the te rm "boy ." It is tr ue th at t he te rm has o f t e n b e e n u s e d a s a re p u gn a n tra c ia l s lu r. Aft e r a ca re f u l re vie w o f t h e re c o rd , we canno t c oncl ude t hat t he prosec uti on w as attempt ing to infla me the jur y by att ri buti ng ra c is tse n t im e n t , la n gu a ge o r i n t e n tt o t h e a p p e ll a n t
. Eve n if t h e u s e o f

t h e t e rm " b o y" wa s in t e n d e d a s a ra c ia l s lu r, we ca n n o tco n c lu d e t h a tt h is is o la t e d e ve n two u ld h a ve infla med the jur

y to suc h a l ev el as to affect t he v erdict t o the appel lan t' s d etr iment
. This i s p arti cul ar ly

tr ue i n l ig ht of the ov er w hel ming ev ide nce heard by the jur y of the appel lan t' s g uil t i n thi s c ase. The appel lan t al so tak es umbra g e at a s tatementmade by the attor ney

g eneral in w hic h he pur por

ted t o q uote the t est imony of Mi ke El dr idg e. The prosec utor st ated that Mi ke El dr idg e's tes ti mony w as that the a ppel lan t t old hi m, "Then, as he w as lay ing there g aspi ng for b re ath, hel ple ss , I st uck the g un to hi s h ead and bl ew hi s face off ." As the a ppel lan t c or re ctl y poi nts out, the tes ti mony of Mi ke El dr idg e on thi s p oin t was15

tha t the app ellant"said h e sho t him o nce in th e ba ck and once in the face. " Furthe r, Mr . El dr idg e tes ti fied th at t he appe ll ant "s aid at that ti me, he shothi m in the back and, then, sh ot hi m in the face. .
. H e s aid he b lowed hi s face out- -e v er ythi ng but the bot tom part." M ost of

w hatthe pro secut or told th e jury as a quote of

Mr . Eldridge's testim ony w as esse ntially w hatMr . Eldridge testif ied to , butw as clearly nota direct quote. One po rtion of

the pro secut or's rema rks w hich f inds no supp ort in the record as bei ng tes ti mony

of Mi ke El dr idg e i s t hat t he appe ll ant d esc ri bed t he v icti m as g aspi ng for b re ath a nd hel ple ss . W hil e thi s c ertai nly created a s trong v is ual i mag e for the jury , w e f ind th at th is statem entw as no t so prejud icial as to af fect th e v erdict improper ly
. Addi ti onal ly , t here w as tes ti mony from D r. Gretel H ar lan thatthe appel lan t wa s a li ve a tt h e t im e h e wa s sh o tin t h e b a c ka n d t h a tt h e b a c kwo u n d wo u ld h a ve killed him wi thin a mat ter of minu tes. It is, the refore, no t incon ceivable tha t the jury mig ht ha v e c oncl uded on i ts ow n tha t t he v icti m w as g aspi ng for b re ath moment s before h is deat h. In an y ev ent, as w it h the othe r re mark s made by the prosec uti on, thes e remark s d o notg o to the h ear t of the ess enti al ele ments of the c ri me cha rg ed for w hic h the re w as ov er w hel ming ev ide nce of gu il t. Fi nal ly , t he appe ll ant o bje cts to the remark s o f the prosec uti on w herein the attor ney g eneral pur por

ted t o q uote the a ppel lan t as sa y ing , in re spons e to lea rn ing that Mi ke El dr idg e had infor med the g ov er nment t hat t he appe ll ant c ommitt ed th e mu rder, "Ge nera l Lock, if I tell y ou th e truth , y ou a re going to pu t me in the ele ctric chai r. F ell ows, if I tel l y ou th e tr uth, I am g oin g to die
. Jus t promis e me you won'tput me i n the el ect ri c c hai r, and I w il l tel l y ou th e tr uth." The appel lan t' s a rg ument i s t hat the a ctu al sta tement made by the appel lan t was made to Ag ent W ix and the sta tement w as: "I w il l make a w ri tten sta tement, but promis e me you won'tg iv e me t he death penal ty ." Addi ti onal ly , t he appe ll ant c ontends thatthere i s n o i ndi cat ion i n the re cord tha t t his co nv ersat ion took pl ace in re spons e to anythi ng sa id by M ik e El dr idg e. Ag ain , w hil e the appel lan t i s c or re ct that the words used by the prosec uti on w ere nota16

directq uote, the ess ence of the s tatementw as tr ue, a nd w e find that w hatev er prejud ice might ha v e followed f rom su ch a stat em entwas avoided bythe trial court’s jur y i nst ru cti ons w hic h w ere tha t t he j ur y sh oul d notreg ard remark s made by ei ther the prosec uti ng att or ney s o r the a ppel lan t' s c ounse l as ev ide nce.

A DMISSION OF A PPE LLA NT’S STA TEMENT T he a ppe llant also conte nds th at th e trial court erred in ad mitt ing i nto ev iden ce the s tatementhe g av e to Ag ent W ix on t he ni g ht of hi s a rrest
. Pr ior to tr ial the tr ial co urt c onducted a n ev ide nti ar y hear ing upon the app ellant 's mot ion to supp ress the u se of his statem ent . Th e ap pellan t argued th at his sta tement w as tak en i n v iol ati on of hi s r ig hts ag ain st sel f-in cr imi nati on g uaranteed by the F ifth an d F our

teent h Amendment s t o the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on and Ar ti cl e I, secti on 9, of the Tennes see Con sti tuti on. As a preli minar

y matte r, w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt' s i nit ial r uli ng from t he bench foll ow ing the suppress ion hear ing w as inc or re ct. The t ri al jud g e s tated that w hether a s tatementw as tak en i n v iol ati on of M iranda, “. ..c omes, freq uentl y , dow n to a q uest ion of fact for the j ur y .” The cour

t furt her st ated that itwoul d al low the sta tement int o ev ide nce,

... but war n the j ur

y thati t al leg edl y

was done i n an improper fashi on and canno t be cons ide re d. In ot her w ords, I pass on i t, firs t, and, then, I hand i t t o the j ur y -or not. In S ta te v . Pu rs l ey , 55 0 S. W .2 d 94 9 ( Ten n. 1 97 7) , th e Ten ne s s ee S up rem e Cou rthel d tha t det er mini ng the admis si bil ity of a c ri minal defendant' s c onfessi on i s t he sole f unct ion of

the trial judge, no t the jury . Although th e cou rt initially indicate d tha t it w ould allow

the jury to m ake a dete rmina tion o n the v olun tarine ss of the de fend ant 's sta tement to t he g ov er nment, i n the w ri tten order fil ed by the cour t i n w hic h the moti on to su ppress was deni ed, t he tr ial co urt s tated :17 . . . tha t the defend antw as ap prop riately advised of his rig hts. T hata knowledgeable a nd int elligent w aiver of his ri g ht t o c ounse l w as made. Base d upon the t otal ity of the c ir c u m s t a n c e s , itis fo u n d t h a tt h is wa s a n o n -c o e rc ive question ing, that th e de fend antw ant ed to talk and thathis w il l w as not o v er bor ne. Addi ti onal ly , i n i ts ins tr uct ion s t o the j ur y , t he tr ial co urt di d noti nv it e the j ur y to deter mine the l eg al is sue conc er nin g w hether the sta tement w as tak en i n v iol ati on of the d efendant's r ig ht t o c ounse l. R ather , t he c our t i nst ru cte d the j ur

y thatthe deci si on to be liev e w het her the confession or any part of it was un true or ne v er ma de was their deci si on al one. Al thoug h the co urt s tated thatas a preli minar y matte r the s tatement w as ad missible but th at it w ould allow the jury to de cide th e issue ultim ate ly , the jury w as nev er

actual ly as ked to pa ss on t his l eg al q uest ion
. Acc ordin g ly , w e c oncl ude th a t t h e ap p e lla n t was no t p reju d ice d by th e tri a l co u rt ’s in it ia l o ra l ru lin g. The appel lan t c ontends thatal thoug h he w as g iv en and understo od hi s M iranda w ar nin g s p ri or

to q uest ion ing , s ometi me dur ing the int er ro g ati on, h e as ked for an opp ortun ity

to confer w ith an atto rney but w as de nied thatrig ht prior to giv ing his sta tement. Testi fyi ng at the s uppress ion hear ing w ere the appel lan t, Ag ent W ix , and Atto rn ey R ober t W . Bo y d, J r. of the D is tr ict Attor ney Gene ra l' s o ff ic e. Agent W ix

testif ied th at th e ap pellan t w as brou ght to the library at the Distri ct Atto rn ey Gene ra l' s o ff ic e after

bei ng ar re ste d on dr ug ch arg es. W ix adv is ed th e appel lan t of hi s c onst it uti onal r ig hts and then beg an q uest ion ing hi m in reg ard to the drug charges. Late r the question ing turned to the m urde r of Christophe r Boy d. At f irst the a ppel lan t den ied any kn ow led g e of the murde r and refused to ans w er q uest ion s. Howev er , Ag ent W ix

sa id that the a ppel lan t made a number of inc ri minat ing admis si ons re g ardin g the murde r after Mi ke El dr idg e w as broug ht i nto t he room and tol d the appel lan t t hat h e had infor med the pol ic e of the appel lan t’ s i nv olv ement i n the murde r of Chr is topher

Boy d. W ix

tes ti fied th at atno t ime did the appel lan t ev er request to co nfer w ith an atto rney but did request to be allowed to tele pho ne h is18

parents
. W ix

tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t' s req uestto tel ephone his parents w as honored, and after sp eaki ng by

tel ephone w it h hi s mot her , t he appe ll ant c omplet ed hi s o ra l sta tement. R ober

t Bo y d transc ri bed t he s tatementi n l ong hand, read i t t o the appel lan t, and t he appe ll ant s ig ned i t. The appel lan t t est ified thatfoll ow ing hi s a rreston t he dr ug ch arg e he w as advised of

his Mi rand a rig hts an d told Agent W ix thathe did n ot ne ed a n att orne y . He said th at w hen the questio ning later turne d to th e mu rder tha t he was ag ain read his ri gh t s b y A ge n tW ix. The appel lan t t est ified thathe t old Ag ent W ix that , "I di d notsh oot a ny one, and tha t I did no t have noth ing to say abo ut it." Th e ap pellan t testif ied th at after Mike El dr idg e w as broug ht i n to the room w here the appel lan t was bei ng q uest ion ed and adv is ed th e appel lan t t hat h e had "tol d the m ev er ythi ng ," t he appe ll ant s aid to Ag ent W ix and Mr . Bo y d, "I t hin k I need an attor ney . . . I need to c all an a ttor ney ." Rob ert Bo y d tes ti fied th at he w as presentdur ing the q uest ion ing of the appel lan t, and, on c ro ss -e x aminat ion , s aid :

I know w e di sc uss ed w hether or not he w anted a l awy er . He mayhav e s aid , "M ay be, I need to t alk to a l awy er , or ma y be I do n't." But I don 't--I know he ne v er asked to talk t o a la wye r. I k n o w h e wa s a f fo rd e d t h e o p p o rt u n it y o n two or three oc cas ion s t o as k for one if he wanted to do that
. T he Fif th an d Fourte ent h Am end me nts to the Unite d Sta tes Con stitutio n require that once a person in cus tody req uest s c ounse l, al l int er ro g ati on mus t c ease unti l an attor ney i s p re sent
. Mi ra nda v . Ar iz ona, 384 U .S. 436, 474, 86 S. C t. 1602, 1627, 16 L. E d. 2d 694 (1 966)
. Ar ti cl e I, se cti on 9, of the Tennes see Con sti tuti on prov ide s si mil ar , al bei t broader , protecti on for the a cc used. Se e St ate v . C ru mp, 834 S.W .2d 265, 268 ( Tenn. 1992 ), ce rt . den ied , ___ U .S. ___, 113 S. Ct . 298 , 121 L. Ed. 2d 221( 1992) ( Ar

t. I, § 9, is broader

and more protecti v e of in div idu al ri g hts than i s t he Fi fth Amendment to t he U .S. Con sti tuti on)
. In t his ca se, the appel lan t c ontends that he di d i nv oke his r ig ht t o c ounse l w hen he sta ted t hat p er haps he need ed to sp eak19

w it h a l awy er . Al thoug h one (1 ) g ov er nment w it ness co ntended thatat no ti me di d the appel lan t i nv oke his r ig ht t o c ounse l, R ober t Bo y d di d admi t t hat t he appe ll ant may hav e made a st atement to t he effect tha t per haps he need ed to sp eak w it h a l awy er . Und er the sta ndard annou nced in Stat e v . St ephens on, 8 78 S. W .2d 5 30, 5 48 ( Tenn. 199 4), w here during custod ial interrogation an accu sed m akes a n equiv ocal request for c ounse l, any

furth er q uest ion ing of the a cc used must be l imi ted t o tho se q uest ion s wh ic h wil l s e rve t o cl a ri f y t h e a c c u s e d ' s re qu e s tfo r c o u n s e l. Se e a ls o St a t e v. Fur lou g h, 79 7 S. W .2d 6 31, 6 39 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1990)
. W het her the app ellantdid or did no t ma ke an equiv ocal or un equiv ocal request for an attor ney

i s a q uest ion of fact. On t he c ru ci al is sue of w hether the appel lan t inv oked his r ig ht t o c ounse l someti me dur ing the g ov er nment’ s q uest ion ing of him, the trial court ma de n o factu al f indings. Beca use th e facts are in disp ute , w e can notmake a det er minat ion of w hether the appel lan t’ s r ig ht t o c ounse l dur ing q uest ion ing w as v iol ated. Gi v en th e fact that the s tatementco ntai ned t he appe ll ant’ s a dmis si on th at he s hot a nd k il led the v icti m, w e c annot say thati f the s tatementw as tak en i n v iol ati on of his r ig ht t o c ounse l, t he admi ss ion of the s tatementw as har mles s b ey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Cha pman v . C ali forni a, 38 6 U .S. 18, 8 7 S. C t. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967 ); see also St ate v . Brew er, 640 S.W .2d 33 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 198 2); T.R. A.P. 36 ( b)
. Acc ordin g ly , w e remand th is ca se back to the t ri al cour

t for a findi ng on th e i ss ue of w hether the appel lan t made a req uest , eq uiv ocal or not, for couns el during questionin g prior to confessing to the murd er.

“ S TAT E O F M I N D ” H E AR S AY Last ly , the app ellantconte nds th at th e trial court errone ously admitt ed ce rtain sta tements al leg edl y

made by

the deced ent t o two of the Stat e'sw it ness es. The appel lan t arg ues that suc h tes ti mony ca ll ed for ina dmis si ble hearsay , was ir re lev ant, and v iol ated his st ate a nd federal ri g hts to confro nt an d c ro ss -e x amine w it ness es.20

The Stat e c ontends thatthe sta tements w ere admi ss ibl e pursuantto the l ong sta ndi ng ex cept ion to the h earsay r ule , c ommonly

referred to as the "sta te of mi nd" ex cept ion
. See Tenn. R . Ev id. 803. 3. One o f the St ate' s w it ness es, Ste v e Pl easan t, tes ti fied th at on the day of the murde r the d ecede nt t old hi m thathe a nd th e appel lan t w ere g oin g to a bar n to ste al marijua na. The other

Sta te w it ness , D oug M arti n, was all ow ed to tes ti fy that the deced ent t old hi m thathe, the d ecede nt, and t he appe ll ant h ad pl ans to s teal marijua na. Ma rt in als o tes ti fied th at t he dec edent tol d hi m thatthe pla n w as the appel lan t' s i dea. W hen ana lyz ed, the te stimo ny of Pleasa nt an d Martin attribu te to the victim three outof cour

t as ser ti ons of fact : 1) thatC hr is topher Boy d, t he v icti m, i ntended to ste al marijua na; 2 ) that the v icti m in tended to s teal mar ij uana w it h the appel lan t; and 3) thatthe pla n to ste al marijua na w as the a ppel lan t’ s. Look ing at each ass erti on individually , w e con clude thatall three are he arsay and no ne o f the sta tem ent s w ere admis si ble
. Fi rs t, w hil e c lea rl y

ev ide nci ng the v icti m’s st ate o f mind pr ior to his deat h, t he ass erti on th at t he v icti m in tended to s teal mar ij uana was ina dmis si ble bec ause itw as irrelev ant . W e ha v e tho roughlyrev iew ed th e record in th is case, an d con sidered all theor ies present ed by

both the appel lan t and the Stat e. The id enti ty of the v icti m and his w hereabouts pr ior

to his deat h w ere c lea rl y not an i ss ue attr ial
. The appel lan t raised no defense , such as a cciden t, suicide of the victim, or self-de fense , w hich w oul d make the v icti m’s st ate o f mind rele v ant t o the i ss ue of w hether the appel lan t mu rdered the victim. The app ellant ’s sole defense at trial w as tha t he did not kill Chr is topher

Boy d. Thus, w e c oncl ude t hat t his st atement w as ir re lev ant a nd i t was er ro r to al low

i ts int ro duct ion
. See Tenn. R . Ev id. 401. Seco nd, a lt houg h the Sta te arg ues that the a ss erti on th at t he v icti m w as pla nni ng to ste al marijua na w it h the appel lan t w as offered to sh ow the v icti m’s st ate o f21

min d prior to his dea th, it is app aren t to the Court tha t the true pu rpose of eliciting this testim ony from Martin and Ple asan t w as to giv e evidence of the ap pellan t’s cond uct in lur ing the v icti m to a remote area of the county under the g uis e of st eal ing mar ij uana w it h the real pur pose of the tr ip bei ng the ex ecut ion of the v icti m. The Adv is or

y C ommis si on C omment to R ule 803. 3 s tatesthatthe sta te of mind ex cept ion to the h earsay r ule “ cont emplat es that onl y the decl arant’ s c onduct, not s ome thi rd par

ty ’s co nduct , i s p ro v abl e by thi s h earsay

ex cept ion .” Se e al so Stat e v . H utc his on, 8 98 S. W .2d 1 61, 1 71 ( Tenn. 1994 ). W e hol d tha t t he s tatement s indicat ing the v ictim’s plan to stea l marijuan a w ith the app ellantw ere inad missible hearsay bec ause they

demons trate n ot on ly

the v icti m’s st ate o f mind, w hic h w as immater ial , but t he appe ll ant’ s c onduct as w ell
. Other j ur is dicti ons faced w it h s imi lar ca ses hav e c oncl uded as w e do today
. In Clark v . United State s, 412 A.2d 21 (D. C. App. 19 80), th e District of Columb ia Court of Appe als held inadm issible the out-of-court stat em ent s of a mu rder v ictim w hic h ev ide nced her

pl an to meet w it h the ac cus ed atthe loc ati on w here her mu rdered bod y

w as late r fo und . Th at cou rt w as pe rsuad ed, as are w e, by Justice T ray nor's dissen ting opinion in Peop le v . Alcalde , 148 P.2d 627 , 633 (Cal. 1944 ), i n w hic h he w ro te t hat s uch ev ide nce,

...co uld no t be ad mitt ed wi tho ut th e risk that the jury would conc lud e tha t i t t ended t o prov e the acts of the defendant as w ell as of the d ecl arant, and i t i s c lea r that the prosec uti on us ed th e dec larati on to thatend. There i s n o dispu te as to the ide ntity of the de cease d or as to w here she was at the tim e of

her dea th. Since the evidence is ov er w hel ming as to w ho th e dec eased w as and w here s he w as w hen she m et he r death , no legitima te pu rpose could be s er v ed by admi tti ng her

dec larati ons of w hat s he int ended t o do.
... The onl y pur pose that coul d be ser v ed by admitti ng su ch decl arati ons w oul d be to i nduce the bel ief that the d efendant w ent o ut w it h the dec eased , t ook her to the s cene of the c ri me and t here murdered her
. Her decl arati ons canno t be admitted for thatpur pose w it hout setti ng as ide the ru le ag ain st hearsay .22 W e ag re e w it h the co urt i n C lar k t hat "t o admi t s uch ev ide nce w here the v icti m's i ntent ion s a re i rrele v ant v iol ates one of the fundamental co ncept s o f the s tateof-mind ex cept ion : t hat t he dec larant' s o w n s tate of mind be rele v ant t o a mat er ial issue in the case." Cl ark at 30 ; see also In Re Cheryl H., 200 Cal. Rptr. 78 9, 80 2 (Cal. App.2d D is t.198 4)
. Fi nal ly , t he St ate a ls o i nsi sts thatthe v icti m's st atement that itw as the appel lan t' s p lan to ste al the mar ij uana l ik ew is e w as proper ly admi tted to s how

the v icti m's st ate o f mind rela ti v e to his rela ti onshi p w it h the appel lan t. W e di sag re e. That the i dea t o s teal the marijua na w as the a ppel lan t' s, does not s hed any l ig ht on the v icti m's st ate o f mind pr ior to his deat h. It is cl ear to thi s C our

t t hat t he St ate' s real pur pose in seek ing to int ro duce the s tatementw as to bo ls ter the Stat e's theo ry

that the a ppel lan t l ured th e v icti m to a remote area of the county i n order to ki ll hi m. I n s h o rt , t h e S t a t e u s e d t h i s t e s t i m o n y t o s h o w t h a tt h e k i l l i n g w a s p re m e d i t a t e d
. W e conc lud e tha t t he s tatementw as ina dmis si ble hearsay and that itw as er ro r for th e tr ial cour t t o al low the Stat e to eli ci t t his st atement from D oug M arti n. In t his ca se, bec ause the v icti m's st ate o f mind was ir re lev ant t o the i ss ues prese nte d at trial, an d be cause a portion of the sta tem ent s attribut able to the v ictim conc er ned t he future c onduct of a t hird par ty , i t was er ro r to al low

the jur y to hear the v icti m's pur por

ted s tatement s e v ide nci ng a pl an w hic h he and t he appe ll ant h ad to ste al marijua na to g ether
. Howev er , i f the tr ial co urt on re mand det er mines thatthe appel lan t' s c onfessi on w as proper ly admi tted at t he tr ial , t hen w e hol d tha t t he tr ial court's erron eou s adm ission of the he arsay testimo ny regarding the dece den t's sta tements to Pl easan t and M arti n was har mles s b ey ond a re asona ble doubt , becau se, i n our

v iew , t he ev ide nce of the appe ll ant' s g uil t woul d s impl y be ov er w hel ming
. Tenn. R ule App. P. 36( b)
. Lik ew is e, i f the appel lan t' s s tatementw as take n in v iolation of

his Mi rand a rig hts, a nd th e proo f at the new trial is subst ant ially the s ame, s uch hearsay mustbe e x cl uded.23 CO NC LU SION The record before thi s c our t i s i nadeq uate for us to deter mine w hether the appel lan t’ s s tatementw as int ro duced i n v iol ati on of hi s c onst it uti onal r ig hts to an attor ney . Therefore, we v acat e the j udg ment of co nv icti on and re mand thi s c ase to the t ri al cour

t for a det er minat ion of w hether the appel lan t made a req uestfor c ounse l during the cu stod ial interrogation . If the trial court f inds th at th e ap pellan t did m ake ev en an eq uiv ocal req uestfor a n att or ney , t hen t he tr ial co urt s hal l order a ne w tr ial based upon the e rroneous admi ss ion of the s tatementat the first tr ial
. If, howev er , the t ri al cour

t finds thatno req uestfor a n att or ney was made, t he j udg ment of conv icti on s hal l be rein sta ted b y the tr ial co urt. Acc ordin g ly , t his ca se is remanded t o the tr ial co urt for further proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion
.

W ILLIA M M. BAR KER , J UD GE CO NCU R BY:

PAU L G. SU MM ER S, J UD GE

JOS EPH M . TIPTON , J UD GE